tv [untitled] CSPAN June 16, 2009 5:00am-5:30am EDT
c-sphost: caller:[captioning pey national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> what about the provisions on the energy bill? the provisions on the environment? >> these are throughout. >> can you please elaborate a little bit more on the energy bill? is there a clear way? >> when you look at the renewal will electric standard, this is designed to hopefully reduce the
emissions, which is for the environment. i say this with a little bit of frustration, because i have been asking continually, as we go through this, if the goal is to reduce the emissions, nuclear has to be part of this. there is an energy source that is not letting out any carbon. there are some people in this debate, as we move forward, who believe that the goal of this is to put more wind turbines in place and to advance those industries, and those green jobs. this is fine, but as we put this
in place, we must recognize that those energy sources, that do not have carbon emissions should be in the favorite category. but they are not. we have made some small gains, and with hydroelectric power, but this is a tradeoff, you have the power generated by the wind and the sun, this is environmentally pure. but if you are using solar power, that uses any amount of water, this is a problem.
if you have wind power, that is in the path of a fly-way, this is a problem. but we need to focus on is how we will reduce the emissions in a meaningful way. >> i wonder if you could talk about the nature of nuclear power as it was in the committee, or something more specific or increasing the amount of nuclear power, and can you talk about the likelihood that you will introduce this? >> you will see a good debate on nuclear power, and the amendment will go from this to the loan guarantee, and how we deal with
waste management, i think that this is going to be throughout. i would not suggest that anything the limited, as far as we do -- what we may expect out of the committee, we have been trying to see if we can get an amendment that will speak more to a feeling of the policies of this nation, going to nuclear, from a broader statement. we are hopeful that we will be able to do this. >> can we go back to those amendments? can you explain what these would do? >> do you have the amendment?
there are two of these, one of them relates to drilling in the other two -- the first is concerning because of the way that this is drafted. this is not very clear. it appears to be related to drilling operations, in arctic waters. but when you read this further, this leads you to believe that this could also be any operation in the arctic. it is less than clear, where this is.
essentially this requires that until this can be clearly stated and defined, that there is no impact, any and all of these spills, are capable of being secured. that there should be no operations. in order for the meat -- the permits to be issued, you have to provide for the certification, of all of the regulatory agencies. you have the process in place. i am looking at the language, this appears to be an effort to stop the most simple offshore
drilling, and possibly on the shore as well. and the other is an amendment that relates to the limits of discharge, but requiring the secretary of the interior to write these rules, and in terms of how you define what this is, for the purposes of this this is uncertain. and given given the most current ruling that is out there, that carbon emissions are considered polluting, anything that is going on up north, could be considered a discharge subject to the rules.
we are concerned by the impact on existing production, this may be very detrimental. >> down there. >> can you talk about shell, lng, and alaska gas? there was a development that transcanada -- this is a difficult question. there is a huge amount of gas, going into the u.s. markets. where do you see the project position? >> it is is a good question. we have great potential in the country, this is coming out and
these are sources that, quite honestly, 10 years ago, we had not factored in. these are extremely important looking to domestic production. you have to get this into the distribution center. i believe that you will need everything that we can produce domestically as well as what we can deliver -- we have 25 cubic feet of the reserves. we're going to need all of them, particularly if we move to a situation where there is further a cap and trade regime. we're looking for the quantities of natural gas. if you do what t. boone pickens
wants to do, we will need to have natural gas. i do not want those supplies to be imported, i do not want to know when we take this country into the same situation with natural-gas that we are in with oil, we are reliant on them for sources of oil. we have the ability to meet the needs, but we have to get this online. the news from last week about exxon, partner in with the trans canada project is good. we have always known that in order to get gasoline to the lower 48 states, -- natural gas to the lower 48 states, it would take british petroleum and,
coke, figuring out how we move this farther down the pike. and we have the people with a gasoline in the same room, you have british petroleum and, co --, co -- conoco. and you have exxon trans-canada. there will be a time in the not too distant future when everyone is coming together to make this project a reality. containing this in the energy bill, there are a couple of provisions to facilitate this. in 2004, we had inserted a loan guarantee provision, and $18
billion guarantee and we are increasing this to $30 billion. this will be from 26 to around $30 billion, there will be more than this. we have increased this and added to the financing bank, and this is an effort to reduce some of the financing costs which, as this project continues to get more expensive, anything that will facilitate this will be important. >> what about the use of natural gas for transportation? >> absolutely. if you think about the options when it comes to, how we move the vehicles, this is only a matter of time before we find
out how to get off of oil. natural gas is clearly one of the ways to do this. if we have this resource, why would we not move in this direction. >> i have one technical issue, are you going to support the zero discharge drilling, on the future lease, because there is the concern about the of the release, just talking about the future exports. more broadly, he said he wanted to consider this on the floor of the senate, and he has continued to say that he wants to conserve energy. can you tell us about the nature
of this, do you understand the provision and the disparity? >> quickly on the discharge, the devil is in the details, in terms of how this is defined. this may be a very difficult criteria or requirement. as they have been working with the native constituents, working with the regulators, this is an issue that has been confounding, this issue has not yet been resolved but it will be. >> the reason i have asked this, is because of the broad
implications. this is one way that they compromised and drilling in these areas, what would the zero discharge do? >> when i say that the devil is in the details, how do you define this? if this is going to include the fact that you have a facility, that is processing something that is putting out carbon, how are you going to achieve this? as far as the energy bill is married to catch and trade, i will say that this is not a good thing for the energy bill. and nothing has happened
lately, that would convince me otherwise. barbara boxer has indicated that she is intending to move something from her committee, by the end of the summer. and i know that the majority leader is looking to that prospect of how you can put the bills together. what we have, in this energy bill, is actually for the words in this, there are good component pieces that really are helping us to reduce the emissions, that are really getting us on the right path, so that we can see the lower commissions across the country.
if we would not pass this bill, this year, and we were going to pass the energy bill, we would actually be doing something positive, when it comes to how we are caring for the environment. recognizing that right now, the marker that we are using for the purposes of the discussion is the waxman bill, recognizing the cost, to the nation, to the consumer, from the legislation such as this, and establishing the capt. trade -- cap and trade, i do not believe the economy is strong enough to do this, i am not convinced that
the families, that are losing their homes, and their jobs, worried about health care and the costs that they may have to pay, i'll not believe that they are looking at this and saying, what we need is a program that is going to make this country a better place. this is not a priority right now. they are not prepared or willing to assume this cost, this is basically an energy tax. if you were going to take this and put this with the energy bill at a time when -- such as now, i think that you will take down the whole thing and i think
that this is a mistake and we should not be advancing this. >> in 2006 you endorsed a plan, there was a price floor and a price ceiling, if this were amended to look more like this, would you support the bill, and would you be more open to include this with the energy legislation? >> i have supported legislation that would put a system in place, and i did this because, of the safety that is there.
recognizing that there will be an expense that is associated with this, if you are a consumer but you know -- you know the parameters of how bad this may be, as a business, you factor this into the business plan. but when you do not know, and there is uncertainty, and we are talking about these credits and we do not know what this is going to be like, you have this feeling that you will be one of the losers. this is not the approach that i was wanting to take. i was taking a bold step out of this three years ago, when i signed on to this, as a republican.
there was a feeling of, what does she know? i come from a place where we can see changes, in the climate and we see how this is affecting the environment. this is not a feel what -- theoretical exercise. this is not talking about building bridges, this is talking about how we save communities from the coastal a erosion, because the waves are building up, and literally, villages are falling into the ocean. i feel responsibility of, man is contributing in any way to what is causing these changes, when we can responsibly work to
reduce this, we should be doing so. i am trying to find a balance. and if i thought that there was legislation out there finding the balance, that could be responsibly paid for, this is a different fact. i do not know if we have this. >> is this the identical thing, would that be at? >> if you would connect this to an energy bill, i think that one of the things to keep in mind, we have said this during the discussion, we have been talking about the climate change bill, that was before us. the economy has to be strong enough to go ahead and implement
the changes. if the economy is weaker, this may be too much for that. this is important to be looking at. i would like to think that we will be coming to the very end, of the lower the economy, but i am not an economist that anybody will be listening to. we need to make certain that, what we impose on consumers, and the industry that is providing all the resources, is a reasonable cost. >> i was wondering, i covered this last week and what support came from the amendment,
expanding without revenue sharing? it seemed that many republicans were not happy, the democrats were not happy because this expanded access. what was good about the amendment? >> my belief was that through the amendment, we have opened up an area that has been clearly identified, as having a good quantity of dry gas, this is a very lucrative area. i voted against this because i wanted to make certain that we had a revenue sharing peace and i want -- i believe that we will have greater participation by the states, in support of opening an area of short, if there is revenue sharing that is
available. that is where i was voting on this. i lost but this does not mean i will not come back to try this again, but i am happy that this past because this is now included in the bill. you have some heartburn on both sides, but, the good news and the gain from the passage of the amendment, is that we have opened an area of short, that to this time has been closed to any production, and this is a major deal. >> on the floor -- >> this will bring republican votes, and the sponsor of that amendment, you have his support and i think that a lot of this,
will depend on what is happening with the revenue sharing debate. where you are going with the question is, do you lose more, because this is in there. how many of them are out there like nelson, who will say that this is a terrible thing, against the numbers of members, who will say, this is a step forward, in terms of the ability to increase domestic production, i would like to think that this is a game. >> could you say a few words about the prospects, the united states can extend these rights quite a distance offshore, but
the united states has not yet ratified the treaty, but it seems to me, there will be some opportunity on the floor of the senate, what are your interests there, and do you see any prospects for ratification, are you going to take an active role? >> the united states has the opportunity to claim an area about the size of the state of california, if you are looking at the mapping, offer of the north of alaska, what has come back is consequential and when you recognize that the latest studies that are coming back in
terms of the resources, the oil and gas resources that are potentially under the arctic area, some 30% possibly of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves are in those waters. it has never been of much interest because it was almost unable to be accessed. but as we see passageways opening up, and the area of commerce and activity up north, this is becoming the place to look. unfortunately, if we do not ratify a law, we cannot claim any of those offshore resources, or make the claim before the commission.
and that is to our detriment. if we are not at the table, we will not have the opportunity to claim those resources, or be involved with the environmental issues that will exist up there, the commerce, the fishing, the shipping, and there is so much that is at stake here, and i think that this is imperative that we stepped forward, finally, to ratify the law. in stepped off of the foreign relations committee to go to another and i tried to advocate for the passage. i have been working with john kerry to advance this. we have had some